If I were George Bush right about now, I’d wrap my arms around Harry Reid and give him a great big kiss on the cheek. And I might even consider sending Speaker Pelosi a dozen roses, thanking her for playing her part to perfection in this Democratic Party defeatist extravaganza. For in truth, the Democrats are handing the President the one thing he desperately needed in order to maintain the surge, veto the Iraq supplemental with its timetables and withdrawal stipulations, and unite the Republicans as they haven’t been since the election last November; a political club with which to beat his opponents and re-energize support for the war among his base.

It’s been a while since Bush was presented with such a gift. In previous months, the Democrats played the Iraq card with great care and skill, not getting too much out in front of the American people while maintaining support for their position by framing the debate as one of “altering course” rather than cut and run. They successfully portrayed the President as intransigent on changing strategy. And, of course, the Democrats were helped enormously by the constant drumbeat of negativity regarding the surge as a result of several high profile, horrific bombings with large civilian death tolls.

As an aside, in one of the great historical ironies of all time, the very same elements in the media and on the left that took the Pentagon to task 40 years ago for harping on enemy body counts to show progress in the Viet Nam War now confidently use body counts to show that the surge supposedly isn’t working.

C’est la vie! C’est la guerre!

There’s little doubt that Bush was on the defensive when it came to the Iraq supplemental. While his veto would have been upheld anyway, Harry Reid and his assessment that the war is already lost as well as Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to meet with the Commanding General in Iraq for a briefing has changed the dynamic of the debate over the war, giving the Administration a juicy opening with which to skewer the opposition.

Pelosi’s gaffe is mind boggling. Being able to find time to meet and drink tea with the Syrian thug President Assad but brushing off a briefing with America’s own Iraq Commander General Petraeus is a juxtaposition of priorities that is too delicious not to use. The idea that the defeatists are living a variation of the Three Wise Monkeys by “seeing no progress, hearing no progress, and speaking no progress” when it comes to Iraq reveals a nervousness about some of the news that is breaking through all the stories about car bombings and suicide attacks, which are down in number but not much in the casualties; the fact that some of the indicators regarding the violence are improving less than 3 months into the surge.

In truth, the Democrats and the left have already left the surge for dead. No matter what news comes out of Iraq, the Democrats will spin it to prove that the strategy is not working. Unfortunately, this will be relatively easy to do since the insurgents and terrorists are very obliging in working hand in hand with the defeatists in Congress to undermine the President’s strategy by getting as big a bang for their buck with each brutal attack on innocent civilians as they can.

Of course, other elements of the new strategy not totally dependent on the military are showing signs of success. The reconstruction teams whose numbers have doubled and who have already begun working with tribal leaders to turn the tide in Anbar Province have met with many small but significant successes. This is reflected in a growing realization by Sunnis that they are likely to get a better political deal if the Americans stay rather than if our troops are withdrawn, leaving them in the lurch:

Meanwhile, opponents of the Iraqi operations back in the United States are getting nervous about the success of the security operations in Baghdad and its suburbs. The fact that nearly all the Sunni Arab tribes have joined the government is seen as a political disaster by many U.S. politicians who have declared Iraq a failed venture for the United States. It’s a bizarre situation, and long has been. You only have to visit web sites frequented by Iraqis or American troops, to see that what is reported in most of the media about Iraq is invented, or distorted beyond all reason into an alternate reality.

This “alternate reality” lived in by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is aided and abetted by a compliant news media who appears to be too lazy to balance coverage of bloody body counts with other aspects of the surge that show some signs of progress. The Iraqi army appears to be making significant strides in helping to police Baghdad. And there is a slow process underway to purge many police units of some of the worst elements who enable the sectarian death squads to carry out their murderous rampages or who are killers themselves.

Taken as a whole, some aspects of the surge are working better than others. But even the most caustic observer – and I include myself in that company – would have to agree that there are definite signs that we are not “losing” the war and may, in fact, be nearer to a modest success than anyone realizes.

Much will depend on the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and his government. How committed are they to a truly multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic Iraq? Can they resist the influence of Iranian backed militias and political parties? Will the Shias ever agree to share power with the Sunnis?

These are questions that will not be answered by any actions taken by the US military. But how Maliki deals with them will determine whether or not our strategy is successful.

All of that lies in the future. For now, Harry Reid has a problem. His defeatist words are still ricocheting around the internet and cable news, refusing to disappear down the usual rabbit hole where Democratic faux pas are quietly sent by the media. Instead, those words have energized the pro-war crowd and angered many of the troops. Is it any wonder? When the news organ of the enemy – al-Jazeera - makes your defeatist words headline material, one wonders what else might define the crime of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy?”

But Reid and the Democrats don’t seem to care at this point. Since they have never seen the Iraq War as anything except a political weapon to be used against the President and the Republicans, their cold calculations with regards to handing President Bush and by extension, the United States a defeat don’t need to be buttressed by any kind of nonsense about “supporting the troops.” Their platitudes about caring about our men and women under arms rings rather hollow when the second most powerful Democrat in Washington tells them they’re a bunch of losers – that all their efforts, the blood they’ve spilled, the sacrifices they’ve made, have been in vain.

This won’t be a turning point in the war. But like Admiral Farragut capturing Mobile Bay when the Civil War was at its absolute nadir in August of 1864, Reid’s words have actually heartened the President’s remaining supporters in that they have given them a political opening to portray the Democrats as exactly what they pretend not to be; a party that would rather lose a war than acknowledge any progress toward success in Iraq.

Thanks for the leg up, Harry. We sure needed it.

By: Rick Moran at 3:38 am

12 Responses to “THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY III”

1

Drewsmom Said:
5:25 am

I agree he was handed a gift, but the moonbats will still be out there defending the indefensible so those on the right better grow some spine and get out there NOW and start taling about this so called War Funding Bill aka. hey guys we’ll be gone by this date so yall can chill for awhile an come back like gangbusters when we leave.
How uttterly pathetic and scary.

2

Drongo Said:
8:52 am

“Much will depend on the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and his government. How committed are they to a truly multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic Iraq? Can they resist the influence of Iranian backed militias and political parties? Will the Shias ever agree to share power with the Sunnis?”

To which the answers are, and always were going to be;

1) Not at all, they want a Shia dominated country with themselves permanently in charge.

2) No because they are the Iranian backed militias and political parties.

3) No they won’t because they hate them as past oppressors, the Kurds will not give up their dream of independence and the Sunni will not give up on their view of the US backed Shia government as a bunch of collaborating puppet traitors.

and, of course, the obvious PS.

PS) Mr Malaki can barely get a quorum in his fake parliament (which is generally despised by those he should be leading), is seeing his paper thin support melt away daily, and doesn’t even seem to be being consulted in major security decisions about his capital city, so clearly has the influence of a sick duck, albeit a fundamentalist Islamist, Iranian backed, corrupt, murderous sick duck.

But no, these aren’t the problems. The problem is a lack of WILL on the part of Democrats. If only there were more faith that these problems could be overcome (presumably by hoping really, really hard) and all could work out well. If they’d just shut up and let the President get on with it in his own way then victory will be just around the corner….

3

clarice feldman Said:
9:05 am

Very good,Rick. It was the first thing I read this morning and it set a good mood for the day.

As Harry said, Iraq needs to be handled diplomatically, not militarily. Rick, I wonder if you read your own posts. The fact that the Americans are looking at the prospect of leaving (which we should) is likely forcing the issue of resolution. Put more simply, no project ever gets done unless a deadline is set for it.

If GWB had his way, we would be there forever and a day and would be stuck in the middle of a civil war that no one sees any point in ending. May I remind you that the soldiers are getting their tours of duty extended, the hardware they have is getting worn out. They are being sent back without even being entirely healed up and they are the only ones in the entire country sacrificing for this war. You are not and you never have. Neither for that matter am I.

This conflict has gone on longer than WWII and still has little or nothing to show for it. There is a possible blip in the radar concerning a story of one faction and suddenly you want to scream from the top of the hills that GWB is right and the Dem’s are wrong. You are willing to leave those soldiers in that meat grinder based on that? Don’t you have any sense of what you are talking about?

Sorry but if GWB had been more forthcoming about the circumstances and had not been busted for telling one fairy tale after another about how the war was truly going, I might concede he deserved another chance. Trust is something that I think GWB feels he is entitled to. He has either forgotten or, perhaps never knew that it is earned. Under the circumstances, he has lost trust. Maybe the news in Iraq is getting better, but I no longer believe the news enough to risk any more lives. Too little and too late.

Sorry if the post seems a little disjointed, I could only work on it in parts. Mock away.

7

Doug Purdie Said:
12:53 pm

Rick,

Reid seems to think that leaving American soldiers on the battlefield to fight and die in a batlle they can’t win, for another 6 months is A-OK. If he said we can’t win and called for immediate withdrawel, fine. I disagree, but at least his proposed solution would be consistant with his view of the problem. Instead, he is saying let’s let the soldiers struggle and die for another 6 months before we bring them home.

Instead of harping on his defeatism, we should harp on his lack of concern for dying American soldiers. He’s giving us Hawks an openning, but nobody except you seems to recognize how best to exploit it.

See the proud tradition of Harry Reid through the prism of American conflicts: Valley Forge, Tippecanoe, etc….

11

Doug Purdie Said:
12:41 pm

“If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.”

Joe Leiberman

Rick,
You are no longer the only one making that point. Kudos to Mr. Leiberman. If only he had put more emphasis on that point and if he had only made the point with a more adversarial tone…

12

Joe Helgerson Said:
11:10 am

Sorry folks, no matter what Harry Reid said, it won’t change the reality on the ground in Iraq. Broder comparing Reid with Alberto Gonzalez is ludicrous at best. Broder was once the king of the Beltway pundits, but now with the internet he is a bit player. Most people are ignoring the little cocktail weeny parties among the inside the beltway elitists. Okay the hard right won one 24 hour newscycle, I’ll give them that but…... 65% of the American people want a timeline to withdraw from Iraq. Beating up on the “defeatist” Harry Reid won’t change that statistic. So neo-clowns, bask in the glow of Reids statement(which by the way was taken out of context,go read the entire statement). When Reid putting his foot in his mouth is all you have, then you know the war is an utter disaster, the president is a clown, Cheney lives in a different universe. Dudes, your grasping at straws, your starting to appear desperate and pathetic. Please direct your anger and energy at Maliki for not working out a settlement with the Sunnis. Directing your rage at Reid for telling the truth won’t salvage a failed policy, give it a rest. Unless you want to send 500,000 troops to Iraq for 10 years and another TRILLION dollars, just admit Bush failed, just like the boy king has failed in everything in his entire life. Directing your anger at Reid is just a petty, short term, feel good moment. Dude it doesn’t change anything. Call us dems defeatists until the cows come home, we know were right, deep down you know were right, its called denial. The truth shall set you free.